CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish

The dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in dismissing a contractor's negligence claim against a town. The dissent contends the town violated Labor Law § 220 (3-a) (a) by failing to determine worker classifications, which resulted in the contractor incurring damages for underpayment of prevailing wages. It asserts that the statute's legislative intent includes protection for contractors and that denying a negligence cause of action leaves the contractor without an effective remedy for reimbursement. Additionally, the dissent argues against dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. It advocates for the order to be modified, denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and granting, in part, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability in negligence, remitting the matter for further proceedings on damages and contributory negligence.

NegligenceStatutory DutyLabor LawPrevailing WagePublic WorksUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentContributory NegligenceReimbursementLegislative Intent
References
17
Case No. W2017-00487-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2018

Victor Cole v. Joe Caruso

Plaintiff Victor Cole sued Defendant Joe Caruso alleging unjust enrichment after their business association ended. A jury initially found Caruso unjustly enriched and awarded Cole $10,000, later increased by additur to $50,000. Caruso appealed, arguing Cole failed to establish a prima facie case for unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals found that while Cole did confer benefits, he failed to present sufficient evidence that Caruso's retention of those benefits without further payment was unjust, especially given that Cole had already received $13,000 in compensation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Caruso's motion for directed verdict and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim.

Unjust EnrichmentDirected VerdictPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewQuasi-ContractContract Implied-in-LawCompensationBenefits ConferredTennessee Court of AppealsCivil Procedure
References
30
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04471 [196 AD3d 1182]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2021

Omar v. Moore

Plaintiff Nasir Muzaid Omar brought an action against Michael Moore, II, and Sadeq Ahmed, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment stemming from unsatisfactory construction work. Following a prior appeal where the unjust enrichment claim against Ahmed survived, and the discontinuance of the action against Moore, Ahmed moved for summary judgment to dismiss the sole remaining unjust enrichment cause of action. The Supreme Court granted Ahmed's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the judgment, denied Ahmed's motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the unjust enrichment cause of action, finding Ahmed failed to meet his prima facie burden.

Summary judgmentUnjust enrichmentBreach of contractNegligenceConstruction disputeAppellate reviewPrima facie showingFraudulent inducementQuasi-contractMotion practice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fortune Production Co. v. Conoco, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between four natural gas producers (Fortune Production Co., Tucker Drilling Co., Inc., Curtis Hankamer Corp., and John L. Cox) and their purchaser, Conoco Inc. The producers alleged fraudulent inducement into contracts due to misrepresentations about residue gas resale prices and unjust enrichment for unpaid field liquids. While a jury found fraud and unjust enrichment, it also found the producers had ratified their contracts. The Texas Supreme Court partly reversed a prior appellate decision, holding that certain fraud claims were foreclosed by ratification for periods without definite contracts, but not for definite-term contracts. However, the Court deemed the jury's fraud damage award legally insufficient, remanding those claims. For unjust enrichment, claims covered by express written contracts were precluded, leading to reversals for Fortune, Tucker, and part of Hankamer's claim, while John L. Cox's unjust enrichment award was affirmed. The case was ultimately reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Fraudulent inducementUnjust enrichmentNatural gas contractsContract ratificationDamages calculationLegal remediesOil and gas lawAppellate reviewQuasi-contractContract interpretation
References
20
Case No. Docket No. 6
Regular Panel Decision

Chaluisan v. Simsmetal East LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Chaluisan initiated a putative class action against Simsmetal East LLC and Mark Santiago, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime compensation. Additionally, Chaluisan brought individual state law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment concerning unpaid vacation pay and a non-discretionary bonus. Defendants moved to dismiss the individual claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction and the unjust enrichment claim on preemption grounds. The court dismissed the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Mark Santiago based on a stipulation but denied the defendants' motion to dismiss otherwise, finding a common nucleus of operative fact for supplemental jurisdiction and reserving judgment on the FLSA preemption issue for later stages of litigation.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationNew York Labor LawUnjust EnrichmentBreach of ContractSupplemental JurisdictionMotion to DismissExempt EmployeeWage DisputeEmployment Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Macintyre v. Moore

Pro se plaintiffs Stephen R. MacIntyre and Scott E. Sullivan sued Jack W. Moore and the Town of Henrietta, alleging Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations and unjust enrichment, stemming from their alleged misclassification as independent contractors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the unjust enrichment claim and the FLSA claim against Moore. The court granted dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, finding an implied-in-fact contractual relationship barred it, and dismissed the FLSA claim against Moore in his official capacity as redundant. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the FLSA claim against Moore in his individual capacity, concluding that a public official can be held individually liable as an "employer" under the FLSA based on an "economic realities" test. Consequently, the FLSA claims against Moore in his individual capacity and the Town of Henrietta will proceed.

MisclassificationIndependent ContractorFair Labor Standards ActFLSAUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityPublic Official LiabilityPro Se LitigationEconomic Realities Test
References
121
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ranieri v. Advocare Int'l, L.P.

This is a class action lawsuit filed by former AdvoCare Distributors, Lisa Ranieri and Megan Cornelius, against AdvoCare International, L.P. and several "Individual Defendants" who are top Distributors. Plaintiffs allege AdvoCare operates as an illegal pyramid scheme, violating RICO, federal securities laws, and causing unjust enrichment. The Individual Defendants are accused of promoting the alleged pyramid scheme. The court addressed motions to dismiss filed by both AdvoCare and the Individual Defendants. The court denied dismissal of AdvoCare's primary RICO violations claims but granted dismissal of AdvoCare's RICO conspiracy, securities fraud, and unjust enrichment claims. It also granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss all RICO causes of action against them. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed with prejudice, while other dismissed claims were without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to seek leave to amend their complaint.

Class ActionMotion to DismissRICO ActPyramid SchemeSecurities FraudUnjust EnrichmentPleading StandardsRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)PSLRA
References
61
Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perfect Dental, PLLC v. Allstate Insurance

In this consolidated action, plaintiffs Perfect Dental Care, P.C., Zodiac Dental, PLLC, and Smooth Dental PLLC (Dental PCs) sought unpaid insurance claims from Allstate Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Insurers). The Insurers countersued alleging insurance fraud and unjust enrichment, and initiated a third-party action against various individuals and entities. The Insurers moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaratory judgment that Dental PCs could not recover for services provided by dentists and physical therapists, and for summary judgment on their fraud and unjust enrichment counterclaims. The court denied summary judgment concerning dentists' services, finding a triable issue of fact regarding their employment status. However, it granted summary judgment for the Insurers regarding physical therapy services, as Dental PCs conceded these services were provided by non-employees. Consequently, the court also denied summary judgment on the fraud and unjust enrichment claims, as their resolution depended on the unresolved employment status of the dentists.

Insurance ClaimsHealthcare ServicesContract LawSummary JudgmentProfessional CorporationsIndependent ContractorsEmployment LawFraud AllegationsUnjust EnrichmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 257 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational